Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2008 21:15:54 GMT
Photos of a late 18th century cutlass, also from birdman:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2008 21:41:54 GMT
It certainly looks like these swords were originally made to be cheap and easy to produce. ALong those lines, the $100 repro doesn't look too bad. SHarpen that baby up and get to cuttin'! Let's see what she'll do.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2008 19:19:56 GMT
Just need to get an Accusharp, and then wait until Spring and the warmer weather...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2008 21:46:56 GMT
Oh, yeah. I see you're in Michigan. I guess we can wait for the snow to clear before we force you to go out cutting. ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2008 1:22:10 GMT
Bah, humbug! There are snowmen out there, ready to be smited
|
|
|
Post by salvatore on Jan 23, 2008 3:23:44 GMT
Hey, I have to ask. How effective were sabers? I am a katana man,I know my blades can handle stronger targets, but sabers do not appear to have a lot of bulk behind the cutting edge, does this mean they are frail swords? Someone enlighten me please! ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2008 9:33:47 GMT
Hey, I have to ask. How effective were sabers? I am a katana man,I know my blades can handle stronger targets, but sabers do not appear to have a lot of bulk behind the cutting edge, does this mean they are frail swords? Someone enlighten me please! ;D Mind you, I'm not an expert, but from what I have read a cavalry sabre relied mainly on the mass and momentum of a moving horse behind it for its effectiveness, and therefore didn't need to have a particularly heavy blade. Naval cutlasses, OTOH, since they tended to have shorter blades and DIDN'T have a moving horse to add momentum to the swing (or thrust), had heavier blades so there would be some mass there.
|
|
|
Post by salvatore on Jan 23, 2008 13:27:54 GMT
I see, I never really see saber fights without a horse, now I see why Thanks for clearing the air there, I had no idea!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2008 15:11:47 GMT
Some sabers could be considered frail; the US M1872 cavalry saber comes to mind. In my experience 18th and 19th century cavalry sabers appear to be durable enough for their intended purpose.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2008 15:17:00 GMT
I'm betting that most cavalry sabers are actually just as bulky as a katana. They have fullers, but in terms of strength they're probably pretty similar. The US 1860 probably isn't quite up there, but it's the lightened version of a European light cavalry saber. The 1840 is stouter and wouldn't have that problem.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2008 19:18:03 GMT
I'm betting that most cavalry sabers are actually just as bulky as a katana. They have fullers, but in terms of strength they're probably pretty similar. The US 1860 probably isn't quite up there, but it's the lightened version of a European light cavalry saber. The 1840 is stouter and wouldn't have that problem. I would think that point of balance probably has a lot to do with perceived bulk, too (at least as far as handling is concerned). One of my co-workers is into martial arts, and when I showed him my cutlass he said it felt blade-heavy compared to katanas he had handled, despite the fact that most katanas have the same or slightly longer blade length as the cutlass. One of the Civil War era cavalry sabres had the sobriquet of "Old Wristbreaker" (Cold Steel sells a replica), although it wasn't substantially heavier than most other sabers of its time. My guess is that it probably was biased weight-forward, which would be a help if you were trying to (literally! ;D) disarm somebody in a cavalry charge
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2008 21:24:40 GMT
Numerous historical sabers had blades that were as thick at the hilt as many katana, but featured much greater distal taper, getting quite thin nearer the tip. The first half of the blade (from the hilt, where parrying could occur) would be stiff and thick, while the last half to third (where the cutting is done) would be thin and flexible. Read some of the info at SFI specifically regarding the 1796 light cavalry saber, which could be considered a prime example of this type of blade setup. Certainly not a dainty or frail sword, though there certainly may have been other sabers that were.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2008 6:01:23 GMT
A good way to get around the dial up problem is to re-size your pics. Easy download and free to boot. Will change a big file size pic to around 65kb for internet posting. That shouldnt strain your dial-up. www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/powertoys/xppowertoys.mspxDownload and save image re-sizer, then right click on your pic and save as small size. It only makes a copy of the picture and will leave the original alone. Then you post the small pic.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2008 4:19:36 GMT
im not sure id buy a sword from someone who says "well they aren't complete garbage".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2008 17:27:45 GMT
Keep in mind this sword is aimed at the reenactor on a budget, not the backyard cutter or HES practitioner.
|
|